Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1
|
|
- Julian Palmer
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1 OVERPASSES FOR AMERICA; and VALERIE VILLARREAL, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION -v.- Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal (hereinafter Plaintiffs ), by and through undersigned counsel, bring this Complaint against the Defendant City of Dallas, and their employees, agents, and successors in office, and in support thereof allege the following upon information and belief: INTRODUCTION 1. First and foremost, this case seeks to protect and vindicate fundamental constitutional rights. It is a civil rights action brought under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C seeking redress for the deprivation of their constitutional rights and violations of law caused by Defendant City of Dallas. 2. This case is about the right of all Americans, not just Americans who hold popular religious and political viewpoints, to exercise free speech and free association within our traditional public fora.
2 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 2 of 14 PageID 2 3. Defendant City of Dallas enacted an Amended Ordinance ; (Jan. 22, 2014) which eviscerates Plaintiffs fundamental rights of free speech and peaceable assembly, making it unlawful and subjecting to fines speech and assembly which takes place on any overpass in the City of Dallas, Texas (hereinafter free speech ban ), a forum which shares the same protections as a public sidewalk and constitutes a traditional public forum. (See Exhibit 1- City of Dallas Free Speech Ban). 4. Plaintiffs Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal challenge the constitutionality of the City of Dallas free speech ban. 5. Through Defendant s enactment and enforcement of the City of Dallas free speech ban, the Defendant has deprived and continues to deprive Plaintiffs of their paramount rights and guarantees protected by the United States Constitution and actionable under 42 U.S.C Allegations herein relate to the ordinance, actions and practices of those entities, persons, their predecessors and/or successors pertaining to the City of Dallas free speech ban while acting in the capacity as representatives of the City of Dallas, Texas. All acts alleged herein were committed by Defendant under the color of state law and municipal authority. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages and attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C and JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. The action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C and Plaintiffs claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C 2201 and 2202, by Rule 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by the general 2
3 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 3 of 14 PageID 3 legal and equitable powers of this court. Plaintiffs claims for damages are authorized under 42 U.S.C and by the general legal and equitable powers of this court. 9. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), as the claims arose in this district and all parties reside within the district. PLAINTIFFS 10. Plaintiff Overpasses for America is a non-partisan grassroots movement consisting of regular American citizens who value the rights of the United States Constitution. 11. Plaintiff Overpasses for America exercise their free speech and free assembly rights to discuss and draw attention to issues in our government and promote positive and honest governmental reform. 12. Plaintiff Overpasses for America spreads the message of limited executive powers in our federal government and of accountability amongst our nation s leaders. 13. Plaintiff Overpasses for America is compelled to spread their message to promote a prosperous America and to preserve our constitutionally-recognized freedoms. 14. Plaintiff Valerie Villarreal is a resident of Plano, Texas, which is a northern suburb of Dallas, Texas. 15. Plaintiff Valerie Villarreal is the Texas State Leader, the regional leader for North Texas, and a member of Overpasses for America, specifically the North Dallas/Collin County Chapter of Overpasses for America. 16. Plaintiff Valerie Villarreal exercises her rights to free speech and free assembly with Plaintiff Overpasses for America. 3
4 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 4 of 14 PageID Plaintiffs Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal have regularly engaged and wish to continue to engage in lawful, peaceful free speech in the City of Dallas on or around its overpasses. DEFENDANT 18. Defendant City of Dallas, Texas is a municipal governmental authority and a subdivision of the State of Texas. Defendant City of Dallas, Texas is a municipal corporation with the right to sue and be sued. The City of Dallas, Texas and its officials are responsible for creating, adopting, and enforcing the rules, regulations, ordinances, laws, policies, practices, procedures, and/or customs for the City of Dallas, Texas. 19. The City, its officials, and police department are responsible for creating, adopting, approving, ratifying, and enforcing the ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, practices, procedures, and/or customs of the City, including the policies, practices, and procedures of its police department and ordinances as set forth in this Complaint. FACTUAL PREDICATE Plaintiffs Free Speech and Free Assembly 20. Plaintiffs Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal hold assemblies to exercise their free speech rights and educate citizens of the Dallas area about governmental practices and political philosophies. 21. Plaintiffs Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal reach their intended audiences in the City of Dallas by utilizing the City s overpasses. 22. Overpasses typically consist of a sidewalk with a fence along one or both sides. Many overpasses consist of a public street next to or contiguously adjoining the sidewalk. 4
5 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 5 of 14 PageID The sidewalk space of the overpass arches across the width of the highway and is truly used as a public sidewalk. 24. The sidewalk space of the overpass arches across the width of the highway. 25. The sidewalk space of the overpass provides the Plaintiffs with an ideal forum which allows Plaintiffs to reach a large number of individuals in the general public with their message and which allows Plaintiffs to freely associate to discuss their message. 26. Plaintiffs and their many supporters have demonstrated and associated on overpasses of the City of Dallas because there is no similar location that will reach the same audience or the same amount of people. 27. Defendant allows for Plaintiffs intended audience to receive numerous messages and view various signs including billboards on the highway, transit advertisements such as bus exteriors, mobile and truck side billboards, and alternative advertising such as airborne displays. 28. Plaintiffs have held approximately free speech assemblies on overpasses in the City of Dallas and its surrounding areas. 29. Plaintiffs intend to continue to hold peaceful, free speech assemblies in the City of Dallas. 30. Plaintiffs free speech assemblies have never caused a public safety or traffic safety issue. 31. On March 1, 2014, Plaintiffs held a free speech assembly in the City of Dallas on Northaven overpass at the Dallas North Tollway. This overpass borders a neighborhood street with the posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. 32. Plaintiffs free speech assembly gained participation of approximately citizens. 5
6 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 6 of 14 PageID Plaintiffs typically expect approximately citizen participation for all of their free speech assemblies held on overpasses in the Dallas area. 34. Plaintiffs organized the event in cooperation with law enforcement from the Dallas Police Department and with a Director of Homeland Security in Dallas. 35. The free speech assembly was a success and posed no public safety or traffic safety issues. 36. Plaintiffs held signs in compliance with the City of Dallas ordinances using signs of two sizes: 40 in. by 32 in. or 30 in. by 20 in. 37. Plaintiffs tied no signs to the fencing of the overpass. 38. Plaintiffs again organized to hold a similar assembly to take place in the City of Dallas with volunteers on March 15, Plaintiffs intended to tie no signs to the fencing of the overpass nor use any signs that failed to comply with the City of Dallas ordinances. 40. Plaintiffs intended on causing no public safety or traffic safety issues, and wished to peacefully assemble, spread their message through peaceful speech, and educate the public. 41. Plaintiffs first contacted the Dallas Police Department and a Director of Homeland Security to inform the City of Dallas of their wishes to hold another free speech assembly. 42. Plaintiffs had advertised their free speech assembly to be held on March 15, 2014 and had posted information about the assembly on facebook.com. 43. Plaintiffs were looking forward to holding the free speech assembly on March 15, 2014 and garnered a positive anticipation for their event. 6
7 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 7 of 14 PageID Plaintiffs, however, were informed that they would not be allowed to hold their free speech assembly because the Dallas Police Department was now obligated to enforce the City of Dallas free speech ban. City of Dallas Free Speech Ban 45. On January 22, 2014, the City of Dallas amended their free speech ban. 46. Prior to amending their free speech ban, City of Dallas Council Members commented that the City of Dallas has recently been sued twice due to infringing upon the free speech rights of its citizens through the enactment of unnecessary ordinances. 47. A Council Member for the City of Dallas commented that the amendment at issue (the free speech ban) was an ordinance we don t need. 48. A Council Member for the City of Dallas also stated, relying upon information from the Department of Transportation for the State of Texas, that there is no data that there has ever been any safety issue due to free speech assemblies occurring on the City of Dallas overpasses, let alone even evidence of a single traffic accident due to a free speech assembly in the City of Dallas. 49. Despite this information, the City of Dallas passed the amendment and enacted its free speech ban. 50. The City of Dallas free speech ban threatens Plaintiffs with criminal sanctions and fines up to $ for exercising their rights to free speech and free assembly. 51. Plaintiffs cannot engage in their desired expressive speech and association without violating or being cited under the City of Dallas free speech ban. 52. Plaintiffs want to continue to engage in their desired expressive speech and association as they had been doing prior to the enactment of the City of Dallas free speech ban. 7
8 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 8 of 14 PageID The City of Dallas free speech ban imposes an unconstitutional burden on Plaintiffs constitutional rights. 54. The City of Dallas free speech ban is overbroad, vague, and unconstitutional both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. 55. The City of Dallas free speech ban does nothing to further public safety interests. 56. Defendant has silenced Plaintiffs freedom of speech and thwarted Plaintiffs freedom of assembly to advance their message to their intended audience. 57. The City of Dallas free speech ban permits billboards and other advertisements which appeal to passengers and drivers on the roadway. 58. The City of Dallas free speech ban permits signs describing traffic and construction conditions which appeal to passengers and drivers on the roadway. 59. The City of Dallas free speech ban only serves to silence and foreclose Plaintiffs speech and association, rendering Plaintiffs unable to reach their intended audience with their message and viewpoint. 60. The City of Dallas free speech ban deprives Plaintiffs of their fundamental rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH 61. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all above-stated paragraphs. 62. By reason of the aforementioned, Defendant s free speech ban amended, created, adopted, and enforced under color of state law, has prohibited and continues to prohibit Plaintiffs from exercising their right to engage in free speech in a traditional public forum in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states and their political 8
9 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 9 of 14 PageID 9 subdivisions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C Defendant s free speech ban imposes unconstitutional restrictions on Plaintiffs right to free speech. Unconstitutionally Vague 64. Defendant s free speech ban does not clearly define the terms sign, display, access road, lateral lines of the roadway, and main travel lane. 65. Defendant s free speech ban is unconstitutionally vague because there is no way an ordinary or reasonable person would know how the City of Dallas construes the prohibition in the free speech ban against conduct that is intended to distract the attention of motorists in a main travel lane of the highway, carrying, holding, waving, displaying, or otherwise drawing attention to a sign, or wearing any costume, clothing, attire, or accessory intended to attract or seek the attention of the public. 66. The free speech ban is unconstitutionally vague because there is no way an ordinary or reasonable person would know how the City construes sign, display, access road, lateral lines of the roadway, or main travel lane for purposes of enforcing the free speech ban to restrict and/or outlaw expressive conduct and speech. 67. Since the free speech ban envelops myriad protected speech and expression in failing to define its operable terms, the free speech ban is unconstitutionally vague. 68. Since the free speech ban fails to define its operable terms and explicitly directs and empowers police enforcement, the free speech ban is unconstitutionally vague and chills protected free speech. Unconstitutionally Overbroad 9
10 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 10 of 14 PageID Defendant s free speech ban is not a reasonable time, place and manner restriction. 70. Defendant s free speech ban is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. 71. Defendant s free speech ban does not adequately allow for alternative means of effective exercise of Plaintiffs free speech rights. 72. Defendant s free speech ban encompasses peaceful free speech that is not threatening, violent, or unsafe. 73. Defendant s free speech ban prevents and deters Plaintiffs from engaging in constitutionally protected speech, thereby inflicting continuing injury to Plaintiffs. 74. As a result of the overbreadth of Defendant s free speech ban, a high probability exists that Defendant will engage in over-enforcement of the free speech ban in a manner which unavoidably criminalizes constitutionally protected activity. Unconstitutional As Applied 75. Plaintiffs planned to engage in constitutionally protected speech on a public sidewalk when they were told that they were forbidden from holding their free speech assembly due to Defendant s free speech ban. 76. Plaintiffs were specifically informed that their planned free speech assembly could not take place due to Defendant s free speech ban. 77. Plaintiffs were directly threatened with criminal prosecution and sanctions for their constitutionally protected free speech due to Defendant s free speech ban. 78. Plaintiffs free speech assemblies have never caused a public nuisance, disturbed the peace, nor created either a public safety or traffic safety risk. 10
11 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 11 of 14 PageID Defendant permits an abundance of commercial speech and non-political speech in varying forms near overpasses where Plaintiffs wish to hold their free speech assemblies. 80. Defendant s free speech ban is content-based, targeting the political speech and message of Plaintiffs. 81. Plaintiffs reasonably fear that if they were to hold another free speech assembly on an overpass in the City of Dallas, Plaintiffs would be arrested and/or criminally charged under Defendant s free speech ban. 82. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant s free speech ban, Plaintiffs are chilled and deterred from exercising their constitutionally protected free speech rights. 83. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant s free speech ban, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer irreparable harm. 84. Plaintiffs seek a declaration from this Court that Defendant s free speech ban is constitutionally invalid either on its face as it is vague and overbroad, or as it has been unlawfully applied to Plaintiffs peaceful free speech activities. 85. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the enforcement of Defendant s free speech ban so that they can return to engaging in peaceful, constitutionally protected speech in a traditional public forum in the City of Dallas without fear of criminal citation, penalties, and/or arrest. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS RIGHT TO PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY 86. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all above-stated paragraphs. 87. By reason of the aforementioned, Defendant s free speech ban has prohibited and continues to prohibit Plaintiffs from engaging in peaceable assembly guaranteed by the First 11
12 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 12 of 14 PageID 12 Amendment as applied to the states and their political subdivisions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C The actions and laws of Defendant through Defendant s free speech ban as stated herein poses unconstitutional restrictions on Plaintiffs right to peaceable assembly. 89. Plaintiffs seek to join with others to share their free speech message on and near overpasses in the City of Dallas. For fear of arrest, Plaintiffs have refrained from participating in such assemblies. 90. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s free speech ban, Plaintiffs are chilled and deterred from exercising their right to peaceable assembly. 91. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s free speech ban, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer irreparable harm. 92. Plaintiffs seek a declaration from this Court that Defendant s free speech ban is constitutionally invalid as it denies Plaintiffs of their freedom of assembly. 93. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of Defendant s free speech ban so that they can return to engaging in peaceful, constitutionally protected assembly in a traditional public forum in the City of Dallas without fear of criminal citation, penalties, and/or arrest. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal respectfully petition this Honorable Court to: A. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; 12
13 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 13 of 14 PageID 13 B. Enter a judgment and decree declaring Defendant s free speech ban unconstitutionally denies Plaintiffs of their rights to free speech and free association as described above; C. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from applying and enforcing their unconstitutional free speech ban against Plaintiffs as described above; D. Award Plaintiffs monetary damages to compensate them for their present and continuing loss of free speech assembly in the City of Dallas, and for all other actual injuries Plaintiffs have suffered as a result of Defendant s conduct with respect to their free speech ban; E. Award Plaintiffs nominal damages as set forth in this Complaint; F. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C and other applicable law; and G. Grant any such further relief as the Court should find just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues triable of right by a jury. 13
14 Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 14 of 14 PageID 14 Respectfully submitted, Jerad Wayne Najvar Bar No (Texas) NAJVAR LAW FIRM 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 625 Houston, TX jerad@najvarlaw.com phone fax Attorney in Charge for Plaintiffs s/ Erin Mersino* Erin Mersino, Esq. (P70886) (Michigan) THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER Frank Lloyd Wright Dr. P.O. Box 393 Ann Arbor, MI emersino@thomasmore.org phone fax Of counsel for Plaintiffs *Pro Hac Vice pending s/ Erin Kuenzig* Erin Kuenzig, Esq. (P78077) (Michigan) THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER Frank Lloyd Wright Dr. P.O. Box 393 Ann Arbor, MI ekuenzig@thomasmore.org phone fax Of counsel for Plaintiffs *Pro Hac Vice pending 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-0 Document Filed0// Page of Michael Millen Attorney at Law (#) Calle Marguerita Ste. 0 Telephone: Fax: (0) -0 mikemillen@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER
Case 1:14-cv-05919-JEI-KMW Document 19 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 84 Frank L. Corrado, Esquire Attorney ID No. 022221983 BARRY, CORRADO & GRASSI, PC 2700 Pacific Avenue Wildwood, NJ 08260 (609)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
W. ANDREW MCCULLOUGH, L.L.C. (2170) Attorney for Plaintiffs 6885 South State St., Suite 200 Midvale, UT 84047 Telephone: (801) 565-0894 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL
More informationCase 2:14-cv-00644-DB Document 2 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:14-cv-00644-DB Document 2 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 10 STEWART GOLLAN USB # 12524 UTAH LEGAL CLINIC Cooperating Attorneys for UTAH CIVIL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES FOUNDATION, INC. 214 East Fifth South Street
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY. No.
TREVOR A. GRIMM, State Bar No. JONATHAN M. COUPAL, State Bar No. 1 TIMOTHY A. BITTLE, State Bar No. 00 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation 1 Eleventh Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 1 (1-0 Attorneys for
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ANAKA HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SALEM, MISSOURI, a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Missouri,
More informationCOMPLAINT. 1. This action arises under Article I, 2, 7, 10 and 12 of the Rhode Island
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT ) DENNIS GESMONDI, DALLAS HUARD) and GEORGE MADANCY, ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) C.A. No. ) STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, ) RHODE ISLAND ATTORNEY ) GENERAL, and PROVIDENCE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION MAVERICK COUCH, a minor, by and through his Mother and Next Friend, TONYA COUCH, v. Plaintiff, WAYNE LOCAL SCHOOL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:11-cv-00225-KDE-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ) MARIO CACHO and ANTONIO OCAMPO, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) No. v. ) ) SHERIFF
More informationCase 3:14-cv-01824-M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1
Case 3:14-cv-01824-M Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION BEST LITTLE PROMOHOUSE IN TEXAS LLC, Plaintiffs,
More informationNO. PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. Now comes, Tommy Adkisson, individually, in his official capacity as Bexar County
NO. Filed 10 June 24 P12:29 Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza District Clerk Travis District D-1-GN-10-002120 TOMMY ADKISSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND OFFICIALLY ON BEHALF OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERPCT.4
More informationSIMULATED ESSAY EXAM CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
SIMULATED ESSAY EXAM CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SADS, a national college student organization, decided to conduct a campaign protesting government defense spending. SADS members at a university in City planned
More informationCase 5:14-cv-00631 Document 1 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Case 5:14-cv-00631 Document 1 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION CAROLE RIELEY Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14 cv 00631
More informationAMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. KIM WALLANT and LOUIS BOREK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiffs, FREEDOM
More informationCase 2:15-cv-03008-SDW-SCM Document 1 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 2:15-cv-03008-SDW-SCM Document 1 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1 Francis J. Manion Lead Counsel for Plaintiff American Center for Law & Justice Mark R. Scirocco Legal Center for Defense of Life,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JPM NETWORKS, LLC, ) d/b/a KWIKBOOST ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 3:14-cv-1507 JCM FIRST VENTURE, LLC )
More informationCase 8:14-cv-01576-VMC-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID 1
Case 8:14-cv-01576-VMC-AEP Document 1 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION SARA HELLWEGE, v. Plaintiff, TAMPA FAMILY
More informationCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO 1777 Sixth Street Boulder, CO 80302 Plaintiffs: DATE FILED: June 10, 2014 12:41 PM FILING ID: EFFA98C5BB797 CASE NUMBER: 2014CV30718 CLIFTON WILLMENG and ANN GRIFFIN,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG (CHARLOTTESVILLE) DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG (CHARLOTTESVILLE) DIVISION UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA PATENT FOUNDATION Plaintiff, Case No. v. HAMILTON COMPANY AND HAMILTON
More informationCOMPLAINT. Now come Plaintiffs, personal care attendants, consumers, surrogates,
DOCKET NO. SUPERIOR COURT Catherine D. Ludlum, : Amber L. Michaud, : The Connecticut Association of Personal : SUPERIOR COURT Assistance, Inc., : Senator Joseph Markley, : State Representative Robert C.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
Case 4:14-cv-00397-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION JOSEPH REILLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION WAYNE WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, PROTECT SECURITY, LLC. Defendant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:09-CV-00504
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:09-CV-00504 WILLIAM DAVID BOWDEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT ) TOWN OF CARY, ) ) Defendant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Case 6:10-cv-00557 Document 1 Filed 10/21/10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION TRANSDATA, INC., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 6:10-cv-557
More informationCase: 1:16-cv-00951 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:16-cv-00951 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAMELA ANDERSON, Individually and ) as Independent
More informationCase 2:12-cv-00699-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Case 2:12-cv-00699-JRG Document 1 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PRISON LEGAL NEWS, PLAINTIFF v. ANTHONY BETTERTON, individually
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MOBILE TRANSFORMATION LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Case No. A&E TELEVISION NETWORKS, LLC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiff
More informationHow To Get A Court Order To Stop A Flat Fee From Being Charged In Florida
MICHAEL BARFIELD, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA Plaintiff, Case No.: IMMEDIATE HEARING v. REQUESTED PURSUANT TO Fla. Stat. 119.11 (2009) BERNADETTE DIPINO,
More informationCase 3:12-cv-01072-MJR-PMF Document 2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:12-cv-01072-MJR-PMF Document 2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CYRIL B. KORTE, JANE E. KORTE, and KORTE & LUITJOHAN CONTRACTORS,
More informationCase 1:13-cv-00001-SEB-TAB Document 1 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
Case 1:13-cv-00001-SEB-TAB Document 1 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JAIME MILLER, Plaintiff v. No.: 1:13-cv-1 CITY
More informationCase 4:11-cv-00650 Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:11-cv-00650 Document 1 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action
More informationCase 3:14-cv-00671-HU Document 1 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 3:14-cv-00671-HU Document 1 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1 OSB#013943 sean.riddell@live.com Attorney At Law 4411 NE Tillamook St Portland, OR 97140 971-219-8453 Attorney for Plaintiff IN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., MITSUBISHI HEAVY
More informationCase3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-0-JCS Document Filed0/0/ Page of KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP Karl S. Kronenberger (Bar No. ) Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. ) Ansel J. Halliburton (Bar No. 0) 0 Post Street, Suite 0 San Francisco,
More informationINTRODUCTION. States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the State of New Jersey, New Jersey s
LAW OFFICES OF WALTER M. LUERS, LLC Suite C203 23 West Main Street Clinton, New Jersey 08809 Telephone: 908.894.5656 Facsimile: 908.894.5729 wluers@luerslaw.com MARK R. BROWN, ESQ. 303 E. Broad Street
More informationCase 1:14-cv-01362-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:14-cv-01362-UNA Document 1 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ENDEAVOR MESHTECH, INC., Plaintiff, v. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., Civil
More informationSCREEN SPECIALISTS and RICHARD REUSCH, individually, stipulate that the ultrasound. are prescription devices as cleared for marketing by the
CAUSE NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS VS. HEALTH SCREEN SPECIALISTS OF SAN ANTONIO, INC. d/b/a/ HEALTH SCREEN SPECIALISTS, and RICHARD REUSCH, Individually,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION ZIPIT WIRELESS INC., Plaintiff, v. BLACKBERRY LIMITED F/K/A RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and BLACKBERRY CORPORATION f/k/a
More informationOFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, Case No.: v. Plaintiff, BASS PRELITIGATION
More informationHow To File A Lawsuit Against A Corporation In California
1 2 3 4 5 [ATTORNEY NAME] (ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER) [ATTORNEY EMAIL ADDRESS] [LAW FIRM NAME] [LAW FIRM STREET ADDRESS] [LAW FIRM CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE] [LAW FIRM TELEPHONE NUMBER] [LAW FIRM FAX NUMBER]
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION
ETHAN W. BLEVINS, Mont. State Bar No. 37415893 10940 NE 33rd Place, Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98004 ewb@pacificlegal.org Telephone: (425) 576-0484 Facsimile: (425) 576-9565 JOSHUA P. THOMPSON, Cal.
More informationCase4:15-cv-04219-DMR Document1 Filed09/16/15 Page1 of 11
Case:-cv-0-DMR Document Filed0// Page of MICHAEL G. RHODES () (rhodesmg@cooley.com) California Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: Facsimile: BRENDAN J. HUGHES (pro hac vice to be filed) (bhughes@cooley.com)
More informationCase 4:15-cv-00146-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
Case 4:15-cv-00146-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION CHRISTOPHER M. JENSEN, v. Plaintiff, LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA DEAN KUMANCHIK, vs. Plaintiff, Case No.: UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD d/b/a UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, a Florida
More informationCase 3:15-cv-04959 Document 1 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 13
Case 3:15-cv-04959 Document 1 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 13 Phil Telfeyan California Bar No. 258270 Attorney, Equal Justice Under Law 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW South Building Suite 900 Washington, D.C.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Case No: Defendants, Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis, through their
CASE 0:13-cv-00873-RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Michael A. Ofor, Case No: Plaintiff, v. Steven Lecy, and City of Minneapolis, NOTICE
More informationCase 3:16-cv-03615 Document 1 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 18
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 JONATHAN H. BLAVIN (State Bar No. 0) jonathan.blavin@mto.com ELLEN M. RICHMOND (State Bar No. ) ellen.richmond@mto.com JOSHUA PATASHNIK (State Bar No. ) josh.patashnik@mto.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION RPOST HOLDINGS, INC., RPOST COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, and RMAIL LIMITED, CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiffs, v. ADOBE SYSTEMS
More informationU ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTER DISTRICT OF KE TUCKY AT LOUISVILLE O. FILED ELECTRO ICALLY U IVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE
U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTER DISTRICT OF KE TUCKY AT LOUISVILLE O. FILED ELECTRO ICALLY I A YODER 9914 Mary Dell Lane Louisville, KY 40291 PLAI TIFF v. U IVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE DEFE DA TS Serve:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO COLORADO CRIMINAL DEFENSE BAR, a Colorado non-profit corporation; COLORADO CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM COALITION, a Colorado
More informationFlorida Senate - 2016 SB 872
By Senator Bean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 A bill to be entitled An act relating to federal immigration enforcement; providing a short title; creating
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-0 Document Filed0// Page of 0 0 LAKESHORE LAW CENTER Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. (State Bar No. 0 0 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 0-0 Yorba Linda, CA --0 --0 (fax jeff@lakeshorelaw.org Attorney and Plaintiff
More informationCase 1:16-cv-00320-CBA-PK Document 1 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 116-cv-00320-CBA-PK Document 1 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID # 1 Frank J. Martinez (FJM-2149) THE MARTINEZ GROUP PLLC 55 Washington Street, Suite 253-C Brooklyn, New York 11201 718.797.2341 Telephone
More informationYes. There are two types of nuisances, a private nuisance and a public nuisance.
What is a nuisance? An activity which arises from unreasonable, unwarranted or unlawful use by a person of his/her own property, working obstruction or injury to the right of another, or to the public,
More informationCOMPLAINT PARTIES. 2. COGA promotes the expansion of oil and gas supplies, markets, and transportation infrastructure.
DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO 1777 Sixth Street Boulder, CO 80302 Plaintiff: COLORADO OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION v. Defendant: COURT USE ONLY Case No. Division/Courtroom: CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COLORADO
More informationUNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE RICHARD MILLER, of the ) Town of Searsport, County of ) Waldo, State of Maine, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) DALE MCCORMICK in her official capacity ) as Director and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH GRADUATE SCHOOL, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. A:09 CA 382 TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COODINATING
More informationTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341
In The Matter of the Claim of: --------------------------------------------------------------------X THE NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, WESTCHESTER COUNTY FIREARMS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, SPORTSMEN
More informationCAUSE NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff LIFESTREAM PURIFICATION SYSTEMS, LLC. DALLAS COUNTY, T E X A S
CAUSE NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff VS. LIFESTREAM PURIFICATION SYSTEMS, LLC. DALLAS COUNTY, T E X A S Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT FINAL JUDGMENT AND AGREED PERMANENT INJUNCTION
More informationCAUSE NO. ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC., IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF. v. DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. Filed 13 July 19 P3:43 Sherri Adelstein District Clerk Denton District ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC., IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS Defendant.
More informationCase 2:13-cv-01431-RBS Document 1 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-01431-RBS Document 1 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAVID GARCIA : 7427 Belden Street : Basement Apt. : PHILADELPHIA,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-000-jah -CAB Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: ) josh@westcoastlitigation.com Robert L. Hyde, Esq. (SBN: ) bob@westcoastlitigation.com Hyde & Swigart Camino Del Rio South,
More informationMARC D. LAVIK, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. PC 11- : DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, : DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, : STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, : COMPLAINT
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE, SC SUPERIOR COURT MARC D. LAVIK, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. PC 11- DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, Defendant. COMPLAINT Parties and
More information&lagistiiale JUDGE ROSEMONO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION H. STUiiiiT CGNNINGHAM UmEQ SIXm DISTRICT COW JULIE A. TEURBER, Plaintiff,' t ) CIVIL ACTION NO. V. CAROL M. BROWNER,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-00-tsz Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 EVAN CONKLIN PLUMBING AND HEATING INC., a Washington corporation d/b/a SEATTLE PLUMBING
More informationCase 1:14-cv-12193-WGY Document 1 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Case 1:14-cv-12193-WGY Document 1 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS PRIVATE BUSINESS JETS, L.L.C. Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. PRVT, Inc. Defendant. COMPLAINT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON RONALD A. MARRON (SBN 10) ron@consumersadvocates.com ALEXIS WOOD (SBN 000) alexis@consumersadvocates.com KAS GALLUCCI (SBN 0) kas@consumersadvocates.com
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION WALTER ALLEN ROTHGERY, v. Plaintiff, GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant. Cause No. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff Walter Allen
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 0 0 Jeffrey S. Kaufman, Esq. JEFFREY S. KAUFMAN, LTD. N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 0 (0-000 Bar No. 00 Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR
More informationCase 7:08-cv-00185-H Document 1 Filed 11/10/2008 Page 1 of 11
Case 7:08-cv-00185-H Document 1 Filed 11/10/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. : -CV- (_) ) JESSE NIETO, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ACQIS LLC, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., Case No. 6:11-CV-546 Jury Trial Demanded
More informationCOMPLAINT. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF] hereby sues the Defendants, [DEFENDANT #1], [DEFENDANT INTRODUCTION
Form 2:40-2 Complaint Negligence, Motor Vehicle IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ## JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR [COUNTY], FLORIDA [PLAINTIFF], Plaintiff, CASE NO.: ##-##### ## ## GENERAL JURISDICTION vs. [DEFENDANT
More informationCase: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GARY HANLEY on behalf of himself and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
PHILIP M. BALLIF Nevada Bar # 2650 DURHAM, JONES & PINEGAR. P.C. 10785 W. Twain Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702 870-6060 Facsimile: (702 870-6090 Email: pballif@djplaw.com JOHN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 WILLIAM E. KOVACIC General Counsel KATHERINE ROMANO SCHNACK THERESE L. TULLY Federal Trade Commission East Monroe Street, Suite Chicago, Illinois 00 (1 0- [Ph.] (1 0-00 [Fax] FAYE CHEN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. JURY DEMANDED COMPLAINT THE PARTIES
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION PRINTERON INC., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-3025 v. JURY DEMANDED BREEZYPRINT CORPORATION and U.S. HOSPITALITY
More informationCase: 1:15-cv-09957 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
Case: 1:15-cv-09957 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 JACLYN PAZERA Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION v. Case No.
More informationNO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS. CVS PHARMACY, INC. Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS CVS PHARMACY, INC. Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION TO THE HONORABLE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION. v. Case No. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION ALLURE ENERGY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. Case No. NEST LABS, INC., a Delaware corporation, GREEN
More informationChapter 153. Violations and Fines 2013 EDITION. Related Laws Page 571 (2013 Edition)
Chapter 153 2013 EDITION Violations and Fines VIOLATIONS (Generally) 153.005 Definitions 153.008 Violations described 153.012 Violation categories 153.015 Unclassified and specific fine violations 153.018
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ) IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-13121 ) v. ) ) FAIRWARNING, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-13121 v. FAIRWARNING, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. COMPLAINT Iatric Systems, Inc.
More informationCase 3:14-cv-01698-RNC Document 1 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:14-cv-01698-RNC Document 1 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Sharon Isett, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
More informationFIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
District Court, Denver County, Colorado 1437 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80202 GUILLERMO ARTEAGA-GOMEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DATE FILED: January 22, 2015 6:02
More informationCase 1:10-cv-10494-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:10-cv-10494-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. AND PHILIPS SOLID-STATE LIGHTING SOLUTIONS,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
ROBERT D.S. KIM A Law Corporation Attorney At Law ROBERT D.S. KIM 4255-0 77-6400 Nalani Street, Suite A-1 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Telephone (808 329-6611 Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Richard D. Ackerman, Esq (00) Scott D. Lively, Esq. (01) THE PRO-FAMILY LAW CENTER A California Nonprofit Legal Services Organization 0 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 0 Temecula, CA 0 (1) 0- Telephone
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Civil Action No. Ex rel. ) ) FILED IN CAMERA AND Plaintiff, ) UNDER SEAL ) vs. ) FALSE CLAIMS ACT ) MEDICAID FRAUD, ), and ) JURY
More informationErrors and Omissions Insurance. 1.0 Introduction and Definition
Errors and Omissions Insurance 1.0 Introduction and Definition 1.1 Under the terms of this policy the word employee means any trustee of the Board of Education, any employee of the Hicksville Board of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT THE PARTIES
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AEROSCOUT, LTD. and AEROSCOUT, INC., v. CENTRAK INC., Plaintiffs, Defendant. C.A. No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs AeroScout,
More informationCase 3:08-cv-01406-JM-CAB Document 9 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case :0-cv-00-JM-CAB Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 JOHN J. SANSONE, County Counsel County of San Diego By THOMAS D. BUNTON, Senior Deputy (State Bar No. 0 00 Pacific Highway, Room San Diego, California
More informationCase5:15-cv-00404-HRL Document1 Filed01/28/15 Page1 of 12
Case:-cv-000-HRL Document Filed0// Page of 0 ERIC DONEY, #0 edoney@donahue.com JULIE E. HOFER, # jhofer@donahue.com ANDREW S. MACKAY, #0 amackay@donahue.com DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP Harrison Street, th Floor
More informationCase 2:02-cv-00950-TS Document 602 Filed 06/19/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 2:02-cv-00950-TS Document 602 Filed 06/19/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE MICHAEL DOYLE Plaintiffs v. Civil Action No.: JUDGE JOHN O NEIL JR., SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF MAINE, and the MAINE JUDICIAL SYSTEM Defendants COMPLAINT &
More informationCase 1:10-cv-00168-JBS -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 1:10-cv-00168-JBS -KMW Document 1 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SMART VENT INC., : : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION NO.: : : : USA FLOODAIR VENTS,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION
Lake James H. Perriguey, OSB No. 983213 lake@law-works.com LAW WORKS LLC 1906 SW Madison Street Portland, OR 97205-1718 Telephone: (503) 227-1928 Facsimile: (503) 334-2340 Lea Ann Easton, OSB No. 881413
More informationAPPENDIX A IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
APPENDIX A IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS In re: MICHELE GRAHAM, Case No.: 02-43262 (Chapter 7 Debtor. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Adversary Proceeding
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA H.L. WATKINS AND COMPANY, INC., ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. v. ) ) 06-CV8980-3 THE HOT LEAD COMPANY, LLC, ) ROBERT MICHAEL HORNE, )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. NATIONAL HOMETEAM SOLUTIONS, LLC; NATIONAL FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC; COMPLAINT
More informationCase 2:10-cv-01224-JCM-LRL Document 1 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 8
Case :0-cv-0-JCM-LRL Document Filed 0//0 Page of Reno, NV ( -00 Fax ( 0-0 0 Mark R. Thierman, NV# laborlawyer@pacbell.net THIERMAN LAW FIRM, P.C. Reno, Nevada Tel: ( -00 Fax: ( 0-0 David R. Markham, CAL#
More informationSETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AND NOW, the undersigned, in settlement of their dispute as described herein, hereby mutually covenant and agree as follows: WHEREAS, Jeffery Pendleton of
More information